New "Ancient Empires" PBEM created

[Peaster]

Originally posted by Kull


Please ask the Peasteress to perform a Ctrl-N on Babylon (using the hittites_b2330.net save file) and post it. It's time to return this PBEM to a game that might actually be fun for most of the players.

Kull: I guess you guys are still deciding what to do, and I hope you will find some enjoyable way to go on. If there's something painless and non-debatable that I can do to help out, send me a PM or maybe post at CFC [I don't check PolyPM or my old email address very often anymore].

[Kull]

Well, the game is obviously on hold now, since we have two civs without leaders (Bab and Persia).

With Slowthinker gone, we might have more success in recruiting new players. Perhaps some former players might be willing to return. Persia can be handed off as-is, but I suspect that Babylon has been micromanaged into something that barely resembles a "real" Civ2 faction, and will probably have to be either modified or just handed off to the AI to run into the ground for 10-15 turns or so.

We'll need to come up with an equitable distribution of the remaining 32 cities, and have some discussion over the unit limit. We should also look at some of the practices that have crept into this game and consider banning anything that seems overly "gamey". Tech-skipping (allowing civs to build obsolete units) and ownership transfers (for moving units through another civs territory) are some examples. I'm not hard out against everything that's been allowed, but we should evaluate the rules against the "spirit" of what this PBEM is supposed to be about - a depiction of empire growth in the ancient middle east.

Lately that seems to have been lost.

[SlowThinker]

I should clarify my position:
For me it is very uncomfortable if Kull hates me, tries to find ways how to Ctrl-N my turns and newly how to kick me off; for me it is not very comfortable if Straybow lodges unclear two-word complaints (like UN + FUN) related to my person, that are never explained.
Yet by no means I would ask anybody should leave this game.

[Zedd]

Sneaky Sneaky Immo, I think you can announce a resounding CHECK with this move but check-mate is far away.

While I agree that having one civ suddenly de-rail all city building plans and gobbling up the remaining space on the planet is DISTURBING, I don't see it as a cheet or an "illegal" move that should halt the play of the game.

Of course this is comming from the person who played 6 on 1 and made several reasonable attempts at diplomatic solutions that were dismissed before being considered.....so I don't have a problem playing through adversity.

I vote to play on, Micheele1756 (AKA Zeddess) is waiting for a consensus from the forum on her ability to play, or maybe Peaster could re-join if his interest has sparked again.

[kengel]

Hello friends,

just my two pence on this topic:

1. I do not want to personally comment on any player- Erverybody has his/her own style in playing, communication, and trustfulness. You need not to get married .

2. You do not agree that one player boosts up the game by founding cities up to the limit (neither do I). So, what more reason do you need to get into war with Babylon? Since I see this event as a new kind of hindering the development of my and any other civ, provoked with ful intention for exactly this, I do not feel to be bound to any treaty from history.
So the result will be very sad (nevertheless one of the most enjoying things in game play): WORLD WAR...

With this said, Greece formally takes off ambassadors from Babylon and checks the option to declare war on Babylon (if the game will go on)

[SlowThinker]

Frankly said Babylon would be surprised if Greece protested against the last Babylonian economic measure (=new cities):
Babylon warned our friends (including Greeks) about the limit of city licences two times. Now Babylon took last 12% of all licenses (so it was not any extremely large portion). Simultaneously we offered to our friends that we were ready to release some licenses in case of exigency.

So The Immortal would understand if Agamemnon showed an interest in these licenses.
But the immediate warlike proclamation (without any talks, complaints etc) is past our comprehension. Also other friends of Greece should be warned that Greeks are able to turn their attitude from friendly to hostile all of a sudden.
So we hope that the Greek proclamation was only an administrative mistake and that some Greek secretary pressed a wrong button in a fully-automated system.

[Kull]

Since some folks have evinced an interest in playing on against Babylon, they are obviously free to do so. As a result, we will apparently have two parallel games. One game will continue on with an AI-controlled Babylon, while the other game will need to find players for Egypt and Persia.

Zedd, Kengel, and Straybow are welcome to remain with the original game (now Babylon-less), to move over to the parallel Slo-game, or to play in both. In the meantime, the primary game will resume as soon as we resolve a few outstanding issues:

1) Recruit a player for Persia (hopefully Peaster will return)

2) Determine the long term status of Babylon (it can't be handed off to a human player as is, but perhaps could be humanized once it has been thoroughly de-sloed)

3) Agree on a division of the remaining 32 cities.

4) Time table for elimination of the Tech Skipping that has distorted the original intent of the game design.

5) Discuss other "gamey" elements in the current design (i.e. which to keep and which to remove).

[Zedd]

Babylon warned our friends (including Greeks) about the limit of city licences two times.

If I say to you, "look there is a knife on the ground.", and then say "Don't forget about that knife." Would it then be OK for me to stab you in the face with it? Or would you be OK with that becouse I "warned" you twice.

Now Babylon took last 12% of all licenses (so it was not any extremely large portion).

32 cities in one move is not a "moderate" portion, and the move is obviously a play for dominance, so please don't try to 'down play' the significance of such a move.

FYI, I will not be joining another PBEM game.
If it is decided that we will not continue playing THIS game then I will make some time to sub for players for short periods of time, but I do not wish to devote myself to another PBEM.

[Peaster]

Been lurking a bit, curious to see what you guys decide to do. Sounds like it's about over, though I hope not. When I quit, I was counting down to 255 and expected that Persia could keep pace with Babylon, and build about half of the remaining cities. That assumed the other players continued their relatively slow growth rate. IIRC I warned several friendly Kings about a likely "race to 255" and advised them to join, but this was apparently ignored. Anyway, I felt all players should accept that the 255 limit was an unavoidable constraint of the game, and that it should be part of their strategy.

I guess Slow's idea was to surprise you. On the one hand, it seems a very unnatural exploit and against the role-playing spirit of this PBEM. On the other hand, it was a bold move (to delay some of the 32 new cities), since someone else could have pre-empted him. Or... maybe he knows something I don't, and there was no risk.

So anyway, I don't blame him much for that move, but he obviously won't be winning the "Miss Congeniality" Prize for it. I expected the other Kings to team up against him long ago. It does not seem too late, and maybe that could still lead to a very interesting game, at least if Kull and Zeddess join. I was disappointed that only Egypt really backed Persia in our Cold War period; I feel like some of you missed the boat back there.

[Peaster]

Sorry, double post...

[McMonkey]

None of my business really but I thought I would add my thoughts.

Surely a multiplayer game is a contest. 255 cities is the limit. If Babylon managed to build 32 cities then it must be winning the game. Why didn't the other nations build some of their own cities and get their share that way?

If there was nothing in the rules to say a player could not found multiple cities in one turn then no rules have been broken. Why don't the aggrieved nations declare war on Babylonia and destroy some of the offending cities?

It seems unfair to make new rules to react to a rivals move and then try and force them out of the game!

I am not looking for an argument, just putting across my point of view on how PBEM games should work

[SlowThinker]

The Immortal to Lycastus:

If I say to you, "look there is a knife on the ground.", and then say "Don't forget about that knife." Would it then be OK for me to stab you in the face with it? Or would you be OK with that becouse I "warned" you twice.

I can understand the 32 new cities in Babylon didn't make you very happy, but I think your simile to stabbing a knife is not appropriate. You would be right only if our civilizations had a treaty how to divide the remaing city licenses and Babylon broke it.
Babylon took an economical measure, Greece wants to answer with a military counter-measure. If Greeks wanted to show their indignation not only verbally then they could answer with an economical measure (for example to complete trades concluded with Babylon but not to sign new ones). It would be a civilized manner.

32 cities in one move is not a "moderate" portion, and the move is obviously a play for dominance, so please don't try to 'down play' the significance of such a move.

It seems foes of Babylon confused you and so you didn't perceive that Babylon holds only 37% of all world city licenses, so this is not a very good base for a play for world dominance. The cities are still small, and the total production of our empire is far behind if compared with Hatta or Egypt. Of course, once we develop our 95 cities to a comparable performance with the Hittite 28 cities then Babylon will be 3x stronger than Hatta, but still we will form only 37% of the total world power.

[SlowThinker]

ST The Player to All - how to proceed next

Kull, I don't understand your thinking and I think that if you wanted a 'depiction of empire growth in the ancient middle east' and different rules then you should ask it long-ago. Anyway your proposition is on the table and so we may have 2 games:

1) Kull's proposal: to delete the last Bab turn, possibly modify Babylon or hand it off to the AI, make an agreement about last 32 cities, change rules
2) to continue the original game

I think we will have problems to get running only one game, but let us try to achieve it. (BTW I won't feel injured if only Kull's game will be running ultimately)

---

Concerning the option 2) - "to continue the original game":
I am afraid there is no chance to get new players, as three announcements are published since September and nobody showed an interest. A best possibility is Kull changes his mind and stays, otherwise I think some player will have to control 2 civs. In sake of continuity I suggest that Egypt is controlled by the most anti-Babylon leader (so far Agamemnon is the candidate nr 1 ).

[SlowThinker]

from ST The Player - answer to Peaster's post

Peaster, on the one hand I am glad to see you are still interested about our game, on the other hand you published some info that Immortal should not know (although it was nothing substantive). I will gladly publish my past thoughts and comments and read comments of others, but only after it is clear the game is dead.

I expected the other Kings to team up against him long ago. It does not seem too late, and maybe that could still lead to a very interesting game, at least if Kull and Zeddess join.

I see your recommendation is based on a try to get the game rolling, but I think there are also much better ways of development besides 5 against 1 , so please don't impose it.

[SlowThinker]

I started a debate Leader vs. Player. It is related to the last Peaster's post.